This is the Long War. It has more in common in with the Cold War then any World War. Like the World Wars, like the Cold War, we can win. We will win.

But it will take time. A long time.

Never the less, this is what must be done if you would have your children grow up free. Not safe, free. Forget safe, there is no more safe left in the world. It is no longer among your choices, it may even be that it never was among the choices. Your choices are now free, or chained.

Brilliant. You have summarized my own thoughts very well.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

.... Congratulations, you've just proven every extremist right in their mad ravings that we are indeed out to get Islam. We don't need warfare here, because we CANNOT and WILL NOT be able to overpower Islam, and attempting to use the military as a solution will make the problem worse. It didn't work back during the times of the Crusades, and it won't work now either.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:7

This is neither here nor there, but I found out something awhile ago that seems similar to the current situation. In 1945, the Allies beat Nazi Germany, right? But it was not until 1956, the Allies handed over control to the German government after FINALLY managing to eliminate all the "Wolfpack" (or something like that) Nazi guerilla groups that were running around doing.....well, what the insurgents are doing right now, really. A little over ten years. Not often mentioned in connection with that war.

Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' John 11: 25-26
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!

Personally, I think the most important we need to do is somehow fix this defeatist mentality that's infected the Western world, in which every dead soldier becomes a rallying cry for the war protestors to pull out.

Used to be a time, when our soldiers died on the frontlines, we'd scream for vengance. Now, we scream "They Died for Nothing!"

Sorry, but no. Those boys (and girls) didn't die for nothing. They died for the freedom of the Iraqis (and the Afghani). They died for our security. They died for Us. And we need to repay their sacrifice by finishing the fight.

What we need to do to win is steel our resolve and get our fighting morale back.

...We'd actually need something like a propaganda department to do this, though. 'Cause so long as the Liberal Media keeps up the Doom and Gloom reporting, we're our own worst enemies here.

Xellas wrote:.... Congratulations, you've just proven every extremist right in their mad ravings that we are indeed out to get Islam. We don't need warfare here, because we CANNOT and WILL NOT be able to overpower Islam, and attempting to use the military as a solution will make the problem worse. It didn't work back during the times of the Crusades, and it won't work now either.

Um, Xellas... when somebody declares war on you, and then proves it by attacking you, the STUPIDEST thing you can do is to make the Walmart Happy Smily Face your front line soldier. No, you send the Marines to kick their rears out their front ends. Military action didn't work so well in the Crusades, because the Crusaders didn't have any Marines.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

No, military action didn't work so well in the Crusades for the same reason that it won't work so well here. The problem is one of numbers. You've basically declared war on all of Islam here, demanding that basically the entire Islamic world roll over and become nice moderate democratic people like the USA. The problem is that their faith DEMANDS that they rail against that, and when you attempt to use military force you will actually recruit MORE people for their cause. Military might only works when you either have a hard target that you can destroy and end the war, or have a well-defined group of people who you can eliminate to end the war. In this case, we have no hard targets to sepak of, and the only groups we have to target are ever-changing and can recruit pretty much at will from a pool thats three times the size of our entire nation, much less our military forces. They also feel they have absolutely nothing to lose by doing any of these things, and only their salvation and souls to gain by winning.

The fact of the matter is that the only way for military might to win is to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people, most of which will be fighting because of a somewhat misguided belief that we intend to exterminate or convert their entire faith.

Little hint about Islamic peoples. They do NOT recognize separation of church and state in ANY form. For the average Muslim, that applies to other countries as well, so they assume that the USA government is overtly controled by Christian affairs. That means US military force against an Islamic government is construed not only as a military attack but a religious one as well. And I think we all know that there is nothing so fanatical as a zealot. Basically, if you send your precious marines in to try and curbstomp this down, for every one you shoot down ten more WILL take his place, and that will continue well up into the hundreds of thousands numbers. Twenty marines against five thousand screaming maniacs who don't care if they die. You do the odds.

Even if we COULD win this war on a military front, heavy moral questions come into play. Is it worth it to slaughter literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS over this? That's the cost your looking at on THEIR side. That doesn't even touch the cost we will pay in men and money here. I personally don't think what was done on 9/11 is an excuse to declare war on one billion people and start slaughtering. We called it genocide when Hitler slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Holocaust... well those numbers will be MILD if we decide to actually try to use military might to put down any resistance from the Muslim world.

EDIT: In response to Lonestar: I can't speak for others, but I don't have a 'defeatist' attitude. I have an attitude of realism. Namely that I realize that there are some problems in this world that we can't shake a few tanks at and solve. This 'war' will have to be solved by more subtle means than a show of military might, because even if we could win it we'd end up committing genocide in the process. I just don't think that it's worth that.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:7

Madmoonie wrote:This is neither here nor there, but I found out something awhile ago that seems similar to the current situation. In 1945, the Allies beat Nazi Germany, right? But it was not until 1956, the Allies handed over control to the German government after FINALLY managing to eliminate all the "Wolfpack" (or something like that) Nazi guerilla groups that were running around doing.....well, what the insurgents are doing right now, really. A little over ten years. Not often mentioned in connection with that war.

Very true. The Allies held Germany for a long time. As a result, West Germany rebuilt and the people thrived. East Germany, well, we've all seen what Dictators do.

Also, the Wolfpack was actually the name of the U-Boat Arm during the war. The Nazi's that remained eventually formed ODESSA.

A war is never a quick and easy fix, and resistance must be stamped out. The only difference is, back in Germany then, there was no such thing as defeatism. It was always "Let's stamp out those damned Nazi's!", but nowadays people are far, far more aware of the suffering and destruction in these situations, and don't want to be in some way responsible for it.

However, with the advent of more destructive weaponry and the racial disputes, a lot more people have been dieing... Heck, many Iraqi's who were trained to serve in the military to fight insurgents quit when they heard they'd be defending a different group (I.E. Shiite's won't defend Sunni's and vice versa, and everyone hates the Kurds). This is compounded by tactics America has employed such as torture and the dismissal of many translators because they were gay. Whether you believe homosexuality is sinful or not, these people wish to serve in the military with honor, and it's hard to deal with people when they don't speak the same language as you. And as to torture, it's an ineffective and illegal tactic. Whether you believe the Terrorists have no rights or not, the US invalidates its argument by doing so. Rights-for-some is exactly what the Terrorists are fighting for; how does the US have any right to claim moral ground if they do the same? Just because one does it on a greater scale doesn't mean they're truely worse.

The best strategy I see to at least lower troubles is to get more translators on the ground who can help relations between the people and the soldiers. One incident at the beginning of the war where Looters were stealing things, a group of troops forced people out of a car carrying things and ran it over with a tank. It was later found that these men were construction workers taking a Taxi to work. You don't screw up like that if you have people who can speak the language. As to torture, the US needs to own up to it and stop it. Yes, they have every right to detain these people, but by no means is torture allowed. Heck, who's to say some of these guys aren't allowed to be captured to feed false information to the Americans? And the incident where they tied up Iraqi's and had a woman point and laugh at them? BAD move. While, to us, that seems almost jockular, that's a horrendous insult to these people and probably just convinced more people to oppose the US.

There's a lot of work involved, but more translators and an end to torture should, for now, make the work, at the very least, a lot easier.

The question is not "are all muslims bad people?"
The question is "Is Islam a bad religion?"
The answer to that question is yes, yes it is.

We have to cure ourselves of the insanity that insists that every religion deserves to survive, regardless of the cost.
I want to ask these people, these people who shirk away from condemning a blood-cult for what it is: Are you mad?

It isn't just defunct POLITICAL models that must end up on the ash-heap of history.... failed religions end up there as well. Hitler and Tojo and Stalin rub elbows with Queztcoatl and Kali, the KKK and the Black Panther sup at the same table in ruins with the war-god Ares and Baal, the eater of children, and good riddance to them all!
Contrary to the common belief, bad religions do not simply "fade away." They are expunged from the earth when the depredations of their followers become too much for the rest of humanity to stand.
When humanity fails to purge itself of such.... nightmares like the long war of Terror are what happens.

We are in perilous times. We have forgotten that freedom of speech, press and religion <I>were intended to expose speech, press and religion to the winnowing of the marketplace of ideas.</I> .... but instead these enlightened sensibilities have been distorted into justification for putting bad beliefs and ideas on artificial life support. instead of protecting ourselves from folly and evil, we clutch it like a serpent to our breast.

Islam is the enemy. <I>Precisely because it declared war on us first.</i>

For 1400 years, it has never been anything else. And short of disembowelling itself of its own core tenets and first principles, it will never be anything else.

It was founded by a genocidal, treacherous, pedophilic mass murderer--- and that is a matter of historical record. His followers <I>preach of his slaughterings and rapings as an example to follow.</i> To even come up to the bare minimum moral standards of secular 21st century civilization, <I>it would have to purge itself of its own founding prophet, Mohammed.</i>

WE have read the words of its holy book, heard the history of its holy prophet, heard the cries for bloodshed and murder from its holy men, and witnessed the behavior of its followers around the world, wherever they believe their numbers give them advantage. And over 6,000 people have been killed by Islamists in terrorist attacks around the world since 9-11 alone.

This is an evil religion. Those that would argue that it is not are spitting into the wind.

Who is our enemy? Anyone who picks up a weapon and tries to kill us. And only fools deny that it is the Koran itself, and not any "radical interpretation" thereof, that is the foundation of their war against us.

They can preach against us, they can hate us, they can damn us all they want. But if we want to win this war we'd better make it clear that the only thing they better ever wield against us in "Jihad" is WORDS.

We'd better get off our politically correct butts and put the fear of a whole NEW god into 'em if we want to see another century.

"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert

RHJunior wrote:The question is not "are all muslims bad people?"The question is "Is Islam a bad religion?"The answer to that question is yes, yes it is.

Islam actually has rules based of Judeo-Christian teachings. To condemn one requires condemnation of the others.

RHJunior wrote:Islam is the enemy. <I>Precisely because it declared war on us first.</i>

No, militants who claim Islam as a shield declared war first. What would you say if a person declared Christianity is a legitimate reason for war? Is the Red Cross now evil? But of course, that wouldneverhappen.

RHJunior wrote:WE have read the words of its holy book, heard the history of its holy prophet, heard the cries for bloodshed and murder from its holy men, and witnessed the behavior of its followers around the world, wherever they believe their numbers give them advantage. And over 6,000 people have been killed by Islamists in terrorist attacks around the world since 9-11 alone.

I can guarantee I can find incidents analagous to these in Christandom. The Crusades are the most prominent event, but India seems to be a better, more recent example.

RHJunior wrote:This is an evil religion. Those that would argue that it is not are spitting into the wind.

Then I say to thee p'tooie. You cannot brand the entirity of the Muslim world as evil because of, all be it a majority, the people in the Middle East. The Middle East has a HISTORY of violence from every group there, no matter what. Just because Muslims are the majority there and the latest to become the dominant power, you cannot brand the entirity of Islam as evil.

RHJunior wrote:Who is our enemy? Anyone who picks up a weapon and tries to kill us. And only fools deny that it is the Koran itself, and not any "radical interpretation" thereof, that is the foundation of their war against us.

Apparently I am a fool. And so are the Muslims I know, and so are all the Muslims in my area apparently, because these nice, kind, and very charitable people (My Law Teacher alone has over 1600 community service hours from the past six months or so alone) are apparently duped into thinking that the Qur'an they read is not killing soldiers. Yep, not the AK's the Russian's are selling, not the hate mongering, but that little book. Just because you can line-and-verse hatred from something does not mean it also does not include peace and love. The BIBLE is filled with the same words and yet good has come of it too.

RHJunior wrote:They can preach against us, they can hate us, they can damn us all they want. But if we want to win this war we'd better make it clear that the only thing they better ever wield against us in "Jihad" is WORDS.

We'd better get off our politically correct butts and put the fear of a whole NEW god into 'em if we want to see another century.

Maybe you should read up a bit... Jihad means SELF DEFENSE, Fatwah means holy war. An example of Jihad is when the Nation of Islam peacefully protested the unwillingness of the United States Government to admit a black person into a whites-only hospital. They never raised arms in any way. Ever. Fatwah is the holy war thing that was declared on the US, which, ironically, broke Islamic law when it was declared.

And yes, political correctness is stupid, but the fact is, these people aren't driven on by the Qur'an, they're driven on by hunger, by fear, and by bullets being shot at them from both sides.

DON'T blame Muslims for the faults of terrorist groups that hold Islam up as a shield, Ralph, or I will blame you for the faults of terrorist groups that use Christandom for the same purpose.

First off, those who have attacked us from the Islamic faith are a drop in the bucket compared to the number of peacful Muslims in the world. This religion advanced medicine, the rights of women (yes, I know how strange that sounds, but at the time of Islam's founding women were treated FAR worse than they are under Islam), stopped random bloodshed between clans all across the Middle East, institutionalized giving to the poor freely and happily (something us Christians are called to do but rarely actually achieve), and united entire countries in a fairly peaceful rule for nearly a millenia and a half. And now you are comparing it to cults that regularly practiced ritual human sacrifice? You obviously have not done any form of research, or even any form of deep thought on the subject.

Does Islam have some SERIOUS problems to deal with? Yes, yes they do.

Is Islam itself evil? Hell no.

You are taking the vast minority's sins and casting them upon the majority, then declaring war. If the Islamic world were to do the same, they could declare war on us wholesale just on the basis of the atrocities commited at Abu Graid alone. And Islam hasn't 'declared war' on us. Had the whole of Islam declared war on us, we'd have just short of a billion and a half people attacking us. Our forces in Iraq would be shredded, and then they'd take whatever they needed and begin attacking us here on the homefront, more than likely forcing us to either surrender or use nuclear weapons in self defence on our own home turf. No, Islam has NOT declared war on us, and the proof is that we haven't started what would amount to Armaggeddon.

Moving away from the logical inconsistencies in those statements, I'm going to move into the religious ones. You are condoning what amounts to a retaliatory strike against their entire religion based on the actions of a minor few. And yet you claim to be a Christian.

Yes, I say 'claim'. Because I certainly don't see the spirit of Christ in what you've said here. Christ was willing to DIE rather than lift a hand against those who sought his life, rebuking his apostles for attacking those who came to take him away. And he calls us to do the same, to willingly suffer persecution EVEN TO THE POINT OF DEATH in his name. And instead of act the man you CLAIM to follow, you instead suggest that we retaliate and attack hundreds of thousands of innocent people because a few have attacked us in a misguided adaptation of their religion. Those are not the actions of a man seeking to follow Christ. I daresay they smack much more of the influence of Satan.

Those extremists, while they do have support from their Quran, are no different than the extreme idiotic elements in Christianity. They are the Jehova's Witnesses of their religion. Like I have said before, on average muslims cannot read their own religious books, so they are at the mercy of the extremists who only preach the bloody, violent sections of their Quran and ignore the good in it.

You seriously need to step off your soapbox and do some research on what Islam really is and what it stands for. Because your own ignorant words fairly SCREAM that you don't know the first thing about it.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:7

Xellas wrote:Had the whole of Islam declared war on us, we'd have just short of a billion and a half people attacking us. Our forces in Iraq would be shredded, and then they'd take whatever they needed and begin attacking us here on the homefront.

Do you honestly think that if all the Muslims in the world attacked Iraq, that we would lose? We're talking about a mob of poorly trained folks armed with, at most, small arms (which they've shown in Iraq that they don't know how to aim, much less use well) going up against the world's best-trained army which would be in defensive positions. The doom and gloom you predict would only happen to the other side. And, oh dear, they'd take our stuff and use it against us! They can't even figure out how to aim their own AKs, or hit an IFV with an RPG7 from a hundred meters. What would they do with an F16 or an Abrams?

Regarding Islam itself, what do you think is an appropriate ratio for the moderates versus the militants? 1 in 10? 1 in 100?

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

RHJunior wrote:They can preach against us, they can hate us, they can damn us all they want. But if we want to win this war we'd better make it clear that the only thing they better ever wield against us in "Jihad" is WORDS.

BrockthePaine wrote:Do you honestly think that if all the Muslims in the world attacked Iraq, that we would lose? We're talking about a mob of poorly trained folks armed with, at most, small arms (which they've shown in Iraq that they don't know how to aim, much less use well) going up against the world's best-trained army which would be in defensive positions. The doom and gloom you predict would only happen to the other side. And, oh dear, they'd take our stuff and use it against us! They can't even figure out how to aim their own AKs, or hit an IFV with an RPG7 from a hundred meters. What would they do with an F16 or an Abrams?

Regarding Islam itself, what do you think is an appropriate ratio for the moderates versus the militants? 1 in 10? 1 in 100?

Currently? Not even 1/10,000. If the current trends continue however, the numbers will grow. And your not factoring in just how many people 1 billion IS. If even half of that number attacked, you'd see our soldiers outnumbered literally 50 to 1. At some point the defenders will run out of ammunition even if attrition doesn't wear them down. And I was actually just refuting RHJ's comment that the Islamic world declared war on us, which is a horribly incorrect statement. The vast majority of Muslims don't give a rat's ass either way, but if we continue stirring them up they very well could start to care enough to do something about it.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:7

While I certainly don't presume to teach you your own religion, you have misused two words. To more clearly put Brock's point:

A fatwah is a religious ruling from an Islamic scholar, considered under Islamic law. Since there's no clear hierarchy in much if Islamic religious structure, however, any fatwah must be considered:

1. Who has made the fatwah? What are his credentials? What is his history?

2. What is the nature of the fatwah? How does it fit into Islamic law and previous rulings?

Now, following from that, we can say that Osama bin Laden's fatwah is unlikely ever to attract major portions of the Muslim community. He is not a mufti, even if he did mentor under Musa al-Qarni (who holds that Jews and Christians are enemies of Islam). He is also not a mullah; because of this, his fatwah is not generally considered binding. (Remember, the only way he got suicide runs on 9/11 was not to tell the hijackers until they'd already taken over the plane. His words, if you're wondering.)

Moreover, his fatwah does not speak in accordance with the body of Islamic law, as the American Muslim community has already taken pains to point out.

Now, a jihad is literally "struggle". Jihad "by the sword" is properly undertaken only in defense of Islam; thus, the Crusades contained a jihad bis saif, as Muslims resisted the Christian efforts to remove them from Jerusalem.

Properly speaking, of course, Osama is himself an infidel for disputing with the Muslim rulers of Saudi Arabia over their use of American troops. But why get picky?

Xellas wrote:If even half of that number attacked, you'd see our soldiers outnumbered literally 50 to 1.

Ah, like the Battle of Mogadishu, were 160 US light infantry got attacked on the move by Somali militia, and killed over 1,000 of them, taking 19 casualties (which, btw, is a 1:52 kill ratio). Some casualty figures say the Somalis took in excess of 2,000 dead: a 1:104 kill ratio, if true. And that was a light infantry force, fighting in enemy-held terrain. What, I wonder, might the casualty figures for the Somalis have become if we had deployed the considerable assets we have in Iraq: Abrams, Bradleys, Strykers, A-10s, Apaches, close-support F16s, AC130 gunships, mortars, field howitzers, M109 Paladins, FAEs, sonic area denial systems, etc?

It is not a matter of equipment alone, of course, but the average American soldier is trained far better than most elite Arab soldiers. The Iraqis, at the very least, have proven time and time again that most of them subscribe their marksmanship to the will of Allah: this bullet will hit the enemy if Allah wills it. Very few Arabs develop the necessary skills to make snipers.

The soldiers Muslim nations field, with the exception of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, make their best showing in small scale actions of platoon size or smaller. Once they make their armies larger than that, they lose to the far superior American system of C3I, which allows us to fight a very fluid war based upon our strengths and the enemy's weaknesses: an immobile army is a dead army. If a unit's about to be overrun, massive forces can be dispatched quickly to turn the tide.

In short, if the Muslims DID decide to send every able-bodied man into a fight with the US, they'd sound their own death-knell. Because that's exactly the plan we'd WANT them to do, because it would play to our advantages. No, the Muslims aren't total strategic idiots: they know they can never consistantly defeat the US on the open battlefield, and thus they choose instead to detonate car bombs from the shadows, then melt into a crowd of sympathetic civilians. They're not dumb, you see. They're playing to their strengths.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

Axelgear wrote:You cannot brand the entirity of the Muslim world as evil because of, all be it a majority, the people in the Middle East.

Shortly after 9/11, my religion professor told our class that Arabs (or was it the Middle East as a whole?) accounted for only 13% of the Islamic world.

Wow, that's actually a surprise to me. I thought the Muslim majority counted itself amongst Africa and the Middle East...

Also, three things to other people:

1. Wolfish, you, and the previous poster, are entirely correct. It is also very true Osama is an infidel to true Muslims.

2. The idea of numbers versus training and equipment are entirely dependent upon tactics and the amount of ammunition. British Troops were slaughtered by Zulu's because of an outnumbering, despite their far superior weapons and training. However, by the same token, other tribes and East Indians were slaughtered.

3. Xellas, I think you put the numbers on the wrong side by accident. It's 10,000 moderates to 1 extremist, right?

My opinion on Islam and it's followers is simple: I don't bother them, and so long as they don't bother me, I'm fine with them.

What we need to do is generalize this opinion and run a helluva big propaganda movement in the middle-east to try and convince them that we don't want to harm all muslims, just the ones following Al-Qaeda's path.

Unfortunetly, Al-Jazeera isn't making the job easy, and one of the things we need to do is take every one of their anti-american stories and run a counter-story to prove just how full of BS they are.

Axelgear wrote:2. The idea of numbers versus training and equipment are entirely dependent upon tactics and the amount of ammunition. British Troops were slaughtered by Zulu's because of an outnumbering, despite their far superior weapons and training. However, by the same token, other tribes and East Indians were slaughtered.

Isandlwana is the battle you're referring to: it was rather a fluke, magnified by errors of leadership and panic amongst the troops. I should point out that in even more dire circumstances, on the exact same day (and following day) as the Battle of Isandlwana, another battle was fought at Rourke's Drift, where 139 British beat off the attack of 4,000 Zulus, killing at least 450 and most likely many hundreds more.

Isandlwana, in any case, was a pyrric victory for the Zulus, and was only possible due to an incredible chain of blunders: the British did not fortify their camp, they did not conduct effective reconnaissance, they did not have any clear field commander, their ammunition was not easily available for distribution, they deployed badly into the field, and the British allies fled. The battles of Intombe and Hlobane were lost due to similar circumstances, on a smaller scale. By the time of Kambula and Ulundi, the British had learned their lesson and made appropriate changes to their command structure and deployment tactics.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

LoneWolf23k wrote:My opinion on Islam and it's followers is simple: I don't bother them, and so long as they don't bother me, I'm fine with them.

What we need to do is generalize this opinion and run a helluva big propaganda movement in the middle-east to try and convince them that we don't want to harm all muslims, just the ones following Al-Qaeda's path.

Unfortunetly, Al-Jazeera isn't making the job easy, and one of the things we need to do is take every one of their anti-american stories and run a counter-story to prove just how full of BS they are.

Yeah. The hard part is that they have an even lower opinion of our media than does the extreme right-wing.

If you could get that message across and really make it sink in, it would be great. But I'm at a loss as to how you could really do that. It's all too easy for the radical leaders to herd them as they please. Heck, even here people are far too trusting of what they're told. What was the last count about how much money we lose a year to Nigerian scammers?

Oy. I wish I knew some way to communicate it effective and undeniably.